Tag: vaccine injury

A case study making the rounds on social media outlines how a woman injected with the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine from AstraZeneca developed psychosis post-vaccination.

The case study published January 2022 in Schizophrenia Research touched on an 18-year-old female student who was sent to the hospital for “irrelevant talk and bizarre behavior.” According to the paper, she had no history of physical illness or substance use. In fact, she had been perfectly healthy both physically and mentally before getting injected.

“While there have been numerous pieces of medical literature on the neurological side effects of the COVID-19 vaccinations, they often revolve around more physical ailments such as lethal headaches and seizures, paralysis, Bell’s palsy, Alzheimer’s [disease], Parkinson’s [disease] and Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS),” the case study noted, adding that the psychotic behavior exhibited by the woman would be classified within the category of neurological side effects.

“Over the period of [the] last few weeks, some of the serious side effects with various (COVID-19) vaccines have been documented in the form of GBS. There is limited data with respect to the psychiatric side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine. Few case reports have documented new onset psychosis after the use of messenger-ribonucleic acid (mRNA) based COVID-19 vaccines.” (Related: The CONNECTION between AUTISM and COVID JABS could boil down to destruction of good gut bacteria.)

The researchers ultimately noted in their case study that “considering the limited data, in this report we present a case of new onset psychosis, following the use of [the] Covishield vaccine.” Covishield is the local version of the Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical firm’s vaccine, manufactured and marketed by the Serum Institute of India.

Keep reading

Sixty percent of young people who were hospitalized with myocarditis after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine still showed signs of myocardial injury roughly six months after getting the shot, according to a new peer-reviewed study funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Critics said the study authors — who published their report in The Lancet on Sept. 6 — downplayed the seriousness of the study’s findings. They also noted that some authors had ties to the government and Big Pharma that may have influenced the research.

The study authors, led by Dr. Supriya S. Jain, a pediatric cardiologist and researcher at Maria Fareri Children’s Hospital in Valhalla, New York, analyzed health outcome data and biomarkers from 333 patients ages 5-30, from 38 U.S. hospitals, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced myocarditis.

The researchers used late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in cardiac MRIs to determine which areas of the patients’ heart tissue were injured.

Gadolinium is a metal used to help doctors see abnormal tissues in MRI scans with more detail, according to Drugwatch. The presence of LGE is often associated with worse outcomes, such as a higher risk of heart failure or arrhythmias, according to Trial Site News in its coverage of the study.

The authors followed up with 307 of the 333 patients by analyzing their health data collected from April 2021 to November 2022. The time between vaccination and follow-up varied, with a median of 178 days.

The results revealed that LGE persisted in the cardiac MRIs of 60% of the patients at the follow-up. Jain and her co-authors called these results “reassuring,” noting that there had not been any reported cardiac-related deaths or heart transplants at the time of writing their report. They recommended “continued clinical surveillance and long-term studies.”

Keep reading

Prof. Sir John Bell, a key figure in the development of the University of Oxford‘s Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “vaccine,” let slip the other day the fact that the school’s latest COVID injection is capable of sterilizing between 60 and 70 percent of those who take it.

In a recent interview about the new shot, Sir John, who teaches medicine at Oxford, seemed to suggest that one of the goals behind these injections is to mass sterilize the planet under the guise of protecting public health against the “COVID virus.”

“These vaccines are unlikely to completely sterilize a population,” Sir John said with seeming disappointment during the interview.

“They’re very likely to have an effect which works in a percentage, say 60 or 70 percent. We’ll have to look quite carefully, and the regulators will have to look quite carefully to make sure that it’s done what we need it to do before it gets approved.”

A clinical trial for the shot is still ongoing and Sir John says there will be a “delay” between when the results are in and when regulators give the shot the green light for public release.

Sir John was barely able to complete his sentence before the interviewer cut him off, apparently to keep him quiet from revealing any further incriminating information about the new Oxford shot.

Keep reading

In the wake of governmental actions during the pandemic, much of the public discourse has focused on individuals who suffered physical or financial injury due to vaccine-related mandates. However, a lesser-explored but equally significant group is those who resisted these mandates for personal, medical, or ethical reasons. As highlighted in the article, “Government Negligence in Pandemic Response,” there were potential breaches of duty by the government in rolling out unproven or harmful treatments, but there are additional implications for those who were indirectly harmed by resisting pandemic policies. This article explores the legal avenues these individuals might pursue, focusing on unlawful discrimination, economic losses, and the broader concept of public authority misuse.

The Legal Foundation for Claims

While individuals who experienced vaccine-related injuries may have clearer paths to compensation, those who resisted mandates may also have endured substantial harm—such as loss of income, restrictions on freedom of movement, and social exclusion. Their legal recourse could vary significantly based on the context, jurisdiction, and the specific nature of their resistance. Below, we explore key areas where legal claims may arise.

1. Loss of Income

One of the most direct and widespread effects of resisting pandemic mandates was loss of income. Many individuals faced termination, suspension, or reduced employment opportunities due to their refusal to comply with vaccine mandates. Employment-related claims often center around wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, or discrimination in the workplace. However, the pandemic created a new legal frontier, raising questions such as whether vaccine mandates violated constitutional rights or unfairly discriminated against those who refused compliance.

Potential Violations of Constitutional Rights

In many jurisdictions, the right to work and the right to make personal medical decisions are fundamental legal principles. Mandates requiring medical interventions, such as vaccination, could be challenged as potential violations of bodily autonomy or personal choice. For example, individuals who refused vaccination for personal or religious reasons may argue that they were coerced into choosing between their job and their bodily autonomy. This argument could gain traction in contexts where courts have recognized an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment, provided that such refusal does not pose a direct and imminent threat to others.

Possible Discrimination Based on Medical Choice

A particularly contentious issue is whether being terminated for refusing vaccination constitutes discrimination. While personal medical choices are not universally recognized as a protected category under anti-discrimination laws, some legal arguments might focus on whether pandemic mandates created new grounds for exclusion or inequality. This could be compared to other forms of discrimination, such as those based on religious beliefs or personal health conditions. Some individuals may explore claims arguing that vaccine mandates disproportionately impacted them based on philosophical beliefs, religious values, or even pre-existing medical conditions that precluded vaccination.

Keep reading